Adelson_The_Bronze_Alloys

THE BRONZE ALLOYS OF THE COINAGE OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE
Author(s): Howard L. Adelson

Source: Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society) , 1954, Vol. 6 (1954), pp. 111-129
Published by: American Numismatic Society
constantinethegreatcoins.com
THE BRONZE ALLOYS OF THE COINAGE OF THE
LATER ROMAN EMPIRE
A summary study of the secondary numismatic literature re

to the bronze coinage of the fourth century demonstrates clea
importance of the alloys which were used in the coin met
specific question of whether or not there was a silver wash
coins of the period following the first tetrarchy that was m
increase their intrinsic value still remains open. If one holds er
ously, as Mickwitz and the earlier writers apparently did,1
bronze coins were not fiduciary, then this silver coating, if pr
would have played a very important role in determining the in
value of the currency and its face value.
In truth, however, it is most probable that the bronze coinag
fiduciary. Most recent opinion with regard to these coins has t
towards the belief that their monetary value rested upon
factors than their intrinsic value. The metallic content of the
played a very small part indeed as compared with such fa
whether or not the fiduciary coins could be readily exchanged f
with full bullion value and whether or not they were acceptabl
government in satisfaction of tax debts at full face value.
theless it is clear that a silver wash on a bronze coin may w
been intended to indicate that it was to be considered as more
than a simple bronze piece, as would normally be the case if
1 Mickwitz, "Geld und Wirtschaft im römischen Reich des IV Jahrhu

Christus/1 Societas Scientiarum Fennica ( Finska Vetenskaps Societeten ,
fors), Commentationes Humanarum Litter arum, IV, 2, p. 62, calculat
value of the coins and established the denominations on the basis of the in-
trinsic value of the metal. P. Strauss, "Remarques sur la monnaie de cuivre au
IVe siècle," Revue numismatique , Ser. 5, Vol. VIII (1944-45), pp. 4-5, felt that
the diminution of the weight of the bronze coinage as well as the debasement
of the alloy by reducing the silver content from four to two per cent was a
sufficient explanation for the rising price of a pound of gold. Mattingly, Roman
Coins y pp. 232-3, attributed the instability of the value of these aes coins to the
same factors.
hi
112 A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
washed coin were to come into conditions of p

circulation with a plain bronze one. A smaller
well represent a higher denomination than a h
Exact information on the nature of the coin metal would therefore
be invaluable in the identification of the individual denominations.
The fact that a certain number of coins from the fourth century
appear to have a silver wash was recognized very early. These coins
are relatively few in number as compared with the sum total of
extant fourth century bronzes, but the appearance of some of them
would clearly lead one to the conclusion that silver was present on
the surface to an appreciable degree. Many of the reports of hoards or
excavations make specific mention of the presence of the so-called
silver wash on some of the pieces,2 and the standard secondary works,
as mentioned before, are replete with references to the "silver-washed"
currency of the fourth century.3 Such references, however, are really
based upon a comparatively few coins and even fewer analyses, so
that it is quite clear that the entire problem must be re-examined.
The Romans were capable of obtaining refined copper and lead
which were virtually pure.4 In the production of alloys for use in
coinage they could, if they chose, either include or exclude any
appreciable amounts of the common or precious metals. They could
refine the copper and lead ores used in the coin alloys so as to remove
2 C. H. V. Sutherland, "A Roman Hoard from Lincolnshire," Numismatic

Chronicle, Ser. 6, Vol. II (1942), p. 108, and Mattingly, "A Small Roman
Hoard from Winchester/' Numismatic Chronicle , Ser. 6, Vol. IV (1946), pp.
152-7, may be taken as examples of such reports.
3 To cite only a few of these references see Mommsen, Histoire de la monnaie
romaine , trans. Duc de Blacas, III, pp. 97-8; Maurice, Numismatique con -
stantinienne , I, p. 427 ; Segrè, Metrologia e circolazione monetaria degli antichi ,
p. 436; "Inflation and Its Implication in Early Byzantine Times," Byzantion ,
XV (1940-41), p. 255, note 24; Mattingly, "The Monetary Systems of the
Roman Empire from Diocletian to Theodosius I," Numismatic Chronicle ,
Ser. 6, Vol. IV (1946), pp. 112-3; Giesecke, Antikes Geldwesen, p. 189. Many
more citations of this order can be given.
4 On the extraction and purification of copper in antiquity see J. and L. Saba-
tier, Production de l'or et de l'argent et du cuivre chez les anciens et hôtels moné-
taires des empires romain et byzantin, pp. 50-3; J. Hammer, "Der Feingehalt
der griechischen und römischen Münzen/' Zeitschrift für Numismatik, neue
Folge XXVI (1926), p. 12. Cf. R. J. Forbes, Metallurgy in Antiquity. A Note-
book for Archaeologists and Technologists, pp. 231-377. Forbes, op . cit., pp.
169-230 deals with the production of silver and lead in antiquity.
BRONZE ALLOYS OF LATE ROMAN EMPIRE 113
the silver which is normally present in those ores as an impurity. The

analysis of the coinage in the period following the reign of Valentinian I
supports this contention, as does a passage from Cassiodorus in which
that sixth century author indicates that the currency of his day was
supposedly of pure metals, and that the precious and base metals
were kept separate.5 Leyden Papyrus X demonstrates clearly that by
the third century mans' knowledge of the metallurgical arts was so
far advanced that the separation of silver from lead or copper ores did
not present any insurmountable problems. Conclusive evidence,
however, that the Romans were capable of separating the various
metals found together in the ores of the fourth century is to be found
in the text of Codex Theodosianus , IX, 21, 6 (Feb. 13, 349 A.D.),
which will be discussed in detail at a later point.
A quantitative analysis of a series of late Roman bronzes should
therefore furnish clear proof of whether or not the Romans did refine
the constituent elements of the bronze to a high degree at all times
and whether or not they applied a silver coating to the surface. If the
percentage of silver in the coin alloy is two per cent or better, it can
be safely assumed that silver has been added to the metal with a
definite purpose in mind. If the silver content lies below two per cent,
the explanation for its presence must lie elsewhere. The amount of
two per cent has been chosen arbitrarily, but it is reasonable. If the
silver content were less it would hardly impart a lasting sheen to the
coins, and if it were applied solely to the surface it would be rapidly
worn away leaving only the bare bronze.
The analysis of late Roman bronzes should yield still more inform-
ation of value. If the series of coins is extensive enough, it should
be possible to determine how strictly the Romans sought to maintain
a specific alloy and also at what periods changes were made in the
metallic content of the coins. This, of course, rests upon the pre-
sumption that discipline at the various mints was strict, and that the
orders transmitted to the mintmasters by the imperial government
received unquestioned and absolute obedience.
A record of a number of such quantitative analyses exists in the
various numismatic publications. In the Appendix to this article 104
6 Cassiodorus, Variae, VII, 32: Auri fiamma nulla injuria permixta albescat,
urgenti color gratia candoris arrideat, aeris rubor in nativa qualitate permaneat .
such analyses involving a total of 319 coins extending f

of Diocletian to that of Heraclius have been collected. U
the pieces that have been analyzed have not in all c
quately described. This presents a problem becaus
number of ancient counterfeits of fourth century b
half of the coins found in the rubbish heaps at Oxyrhyn
and therefore of illegal origin.6 The early fourth centu
extraordinary activity on the part of the counterfeiters
be expected, was immediately reflected in a rash of law
put an end to the practice of forging currency by
increasingly severe punishments for that crime.8
The problem of such counterfeits coming from ant
one even in our time, and it has troubled the modern n
in the preparation of their catalogues. The French sc
who wrote the standard work on the coinage of Co
countered this difficulty in its most serious form. A ser
known which have the same type in silver and in sil
There are other bronze coins which, according to Maur
a visible silver wash and without it in the same type.10
that the first series just cited, i.e., that including coins
silver and in silvered bronze, is composed of true si
counterfeit bronzes which were meant to circulate as silver.11 The
second group, however, presents a more difficult problem. It may be
that originally the entire series of coins was silver coated, but that in
the course of time the thin covering layer of silver was worn off
completely on some of the pieces. It is even possible that the silvery
appearance of some of the coins may be the result of salts or oxides
not containing silver, or perhaps some of the bronze coins were
6 J. G. Milne, "Report on the Coins found at Antinoe in 1914," Numismatic

Chronicle , Ser. 6, Vol. VII (1947), p. 112.
7 Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne, I, pp. 229-30, and 435. For the
concave bronze coins from cities which are not known to have had mints see
Blanchet and Dieudonné, Manuel de numismatique française , I, p. 151.
8 Codex Theodosianus , XI, 21, 1; Ibid., IX, 21, 2 = Codex Iustinianus , IX, 24,
1; Ibid., VII, 13, 2. Cf. Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne, I, pp. xxiv
and cxix. Many more laws may be cited.
9 Maurice, Numismatique constantinienne , I, pp. 397-8.
10 Ibid., I, p. 427.
11 Ibid., I, pp. 397-8.
silver-washed or zinced by counterfeiters since antiquity or even

during the fourth century. The many possibilities present a problem
in themselves, but a careful chemical analysis of these coins would
eliminate some of these hypotheses. Such an analysis would only be
of use, however, if a full description of the type were given for each
specimen, so that it would be possible to establish the relations-
hips, if any, between the percentage of silver, the mint, and the
coin type.
With these difficulties in mind it is still possible to make some
general statements regarding the alloys of the coins listed in the
Appendix. These analyses, as can be seen from the notations in the
column for losses or the totals of the percentages given where no
notation of loss was made by the original authors, have been carried
out rather carefully, and as a group they represent a fairly accurate
picture of the metallic content of late Roman bronzes. The silver
content of individual coins only rises above two per cent exceptionally.
Approximately per cent of the total number of analyses show
silver in excess of two per cent. Since these analyses, however, include
coins struck as late as the reign of Heraclius, at which time there is
no question of a silver coating, a more accurate calculation would
limit the number of analyses involved to the period before the reign
of Theodosius I. Of the 73 analyses which fall into that category only
about 1 3^2 per cent show more than two per cent of silver. A total of
ten coins, all dated in the reign of Valentinian I or earlier, show upon
analysis what may be considered appreciable amounts of silver. Five
of these ten coins have weights above eight grams and five of them
have weights below grams. All of the heavier coins are attributed
to Diocletian and Maximian while the lighter ones are attributed to
Galerius, Magnentius, Constantine II, and Valentinian I.12 In the
case of Magnentius only two coins were analyzed, and both showed
silver in excess of two per cent. In all other cases the number of coins
showing only small amounts of silver or none at all exceeded the
number of pieces with a possible silver coating.
12 Hammer, "Der Feingehalt der griechischen und römischen Münzen," Zeit-

schrift für Numismatik , neue Folge XXVI (1926), p. 143, maintained that from
Diocletian on the larger bronzes contained some silver, but that silver was
only added to the smaller bronzes from the reign of Constantine onwards.
ii6 A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
This wide variation in the silver content

reflected in the composition of the major c
The base metal content of the aes, as can be s
The mint authorities do not seem to have str
composition in the coinage. In many cases no
the coins, while the percentage of lead was of
coin weights and types for those pieces sh
are unknown. The general picture, howe
rationed order in which the composition was
to indicate that the agency for the prepar
from which the coins were struck did not m
elements in exactly prescribed proportion
metals, which had been refined to varying
must be remembered that the metallic content of the bronze would be
relatively unimportant because it merely served as a base for a
fiduciary coin of low face value.
Probably the most important analysis of late Roman bronzes was
that carried out by Brambach on 216 coins of the reign of Constantine
the Great. Tests showed the presence of 1.98 per cent of silver and 0.02
per cent of gold. The weight of the metal involved in this analysis
was about two Roman pounds, so that the weight of the silver was
only some 13 grams out of a total of approximately 646 grams of
metal. Even this is a fairly high percentage as compared with the
majority of the analyses. Unfortunately these tests can only be
considered as uncontrolled because there are no descriptions of the
coins involved. Since the total amount of silver was so small, the
presence of only a single coin that was silvered in antiquity might
negate the validity of the entire analysis. Still the amount of
silver is so small that these results may be interpreted as indicat-
ing that the bronze coinage of that period was not silver coated,
but that small amounts of silver were left in the metals used in the
coin alloy.
Prior to the analysis of nine large folles of the western half of the
Empire which had been part of the Seltz hoard, it was customary to
rely on the work done by Hammer and to say that fourth century
bronzes had a silver wash which formed from two to four per cent of
the mass of the coin, but that since most of the silver was applied on
the surface it had worn off to a large degree.13 The very accurate and
painstaking analysis carried out by Lewis on the nine large bronzes
from the western half of the Empire revealed no silver whatsoever.
Those coins which seemed to have a "white" or silvery coating were
found upon analysis to have a thin layer of copper salt deposited on
the surface. On very close examination it was further revealed that
this copper salt was actually green in color.
In the preparation of the coins for this analysis a great degree of
care was evident, for in some cases the surface layers were removed
until bright metal was exposed, but in others the fragments were
analyzed as received. This would appear to be definite proof that
during the period of the first tetrarchy the bronze coinage of at least
the western half of the Empire was not silver washed. There may have
been a difference in the metallic composition of the coins from the
eastern half of the Empire, but the fact that only a very few authors
have noted the mints in conjunction with the analyses negates
any possibility of determining whether or not such was the case. It
should be noted, however, that four of the ten coins showing silver
in excess of two per cent are attributed to Maximian who ruled in the
West. The coins which are derived from the rulers in the East do not
show quite as much silver. It is therefore most likely that in the
East, as well as in the West, silver was not one of the elements
added to the coin alloy.
On the basis of his research Lewis maintained that the coins of the
first tetrarchy were not silvered. He was, however, faced by the fact
that a law in the Theodosian Code, which has already been mentioned
and which we shall re-interpret at a later point, seemed to indicate
that in 349 A.D. there was silver in the coinage. Earlier writers had
consistently explained that the edict of 349 was evidence of a silver
wash on the bronze coins.14 Therefore, following Mattingly and
Mickwitz, Lewis pointed out that not long after 340 A.D. there was a
13 Idem . Cf. Mickwitz, "Geld und Wirtschaft im römischen Reich des IV Jahr-
hundert n. Christus," Societas Scientiarum Fennica (Finska Vetenskaps Societe-
ten, Heising fors) , Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum , IV, 2, op. cit., pp.
83-4.
14 See Babelon, Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines , I, pt. I, cols. 608-9,
for one of the most far-reaching of such interpretations.
ii8 A. N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
change in the coinage with the issuance o

weight. The most probable date for this ch
contended that the edict of 349 referred to these new coins which he
called the maiorina pecunia , since they were larger and the term
occurred in the edict of 349. He attempted to support this further by
pointing out "that even in 356 a.D. after a second rise in weight to
ca. 6 grams, not all folles were of this "somewhat larger coinage" is
shown by the summary of Codex Theodosianus IX. 23. 1 in the
Vatican MS
ñeque centenionales (small coins) vel maior i

unquestionable, follis here signifies the coin
container. . ."15
In refutation of this last point it may be said that it is by no
means as unquestionable as Lewis infers that the folles mentioned
in Codex Theodosianus , IX, 23, 1, are the coins and not the coin-filled
containers. There is more than adequate proof that such coin-filled
containers existed in antiquity. The actual remains of such rolls of
coins in leather strips with the ends twisted have been recovered. One
such roll was preserved intact, and the traces of others as well as the
"spilled piles" of coins matted together by corrosion are known.16
Etymological and literary proof exists for such rolls of coins,17 and one
early sixth century papyrus gives the price of a suckling pig as one
solidus and three dermata. It is most probable that the leather
container with a specific number of coins is referred to here.18 It is also
true that at least some earlier scholars have interpreted the text in a
fashion that Lewis feels is impossible. Finlay, in a short note, specifi-
cally takes it to be the sack filled with coins and points to the example
15 N. Lewis, A Hoard of Folles from Seltz (Alsace), NNM 79, pp. 17-21.
16 Ibid,, pp. 3-4. He points to the modern usage in which coins are often wrap-
ped in paper in a similar manner.
17 Babelon, Traité des monnaies greques et romaines , I, pt. I, col. 761. Cf. Isidore
of Seville, Etymologiarum , XVI, xviii, 11 (ed. Lindsay, 1911): Folles dicuntur
a sáculo quo conduntur, a continente id quod continetur appelatum. Also see
Hultsch, Metrologicorum Scriptorum Reliquiae , I, pp. 144, note 4; 267; 303;
308; 342-3; II, pp. 105; 151-2. CIL., V, 1880 (late fifth or early sixth century)
contains the expression "denariorum folex sescentos" probably in the sense of
a bag of coins worth 600 denarii. Cf. Ibid., VIII, 5333.
18 P. Oxyrhynchus , 1917; West and Johnson, Currency in Roman and Byzan-
tine Egypt , p. 137.
of the modern Turks who used the expression "a purse" for the sum
of 200 piastres.19
Even more important the analyses listed in the Appendix to this
article show fewer coins dated after 349 containing appreciable
amounts of silver. Elmer in his study of the coinage of Julian, it is
true, refers to the silver-wash {Silbersud) which is noticeable on some
coins of this reign, but he points out that it is lacking on most pieces.
He attributed this lack to the action of the moist earth and said,
without giving any reference or detailed evidence, that analyses show
that the larger coin of Julian had from 1 .20 to two per cent of silver.20
The list of analyses compiled for this paper is in direct contradiction
of Elmer's statement. Only one coin after 355 A.D. shows more than
0.35 per cent of silver, and that coin is attributed to Valentinian. Any
silvery appearance on these mid-fourth century pieces would seem to
be the result of copper salts.
A new explanation must be found for the fact that ten of the
analyses show silver in some quantity as well as for the edict of 349.
These two bits of evidence must be connected. The solution, however,
is readily attainable if it is remembered that even today the largest
part of the silver produced each year is a by-product of copper and
lead refining, and that copper and lead are two of the major con-
stituents of bronze. Native copper always contains some dissolved
silver, and galenite, the usual lead ore, very commonly contains silver
sulphide in addition to lead sulphide. In metals which were not highly
refined some of this silver would remain. The analyses show quite
conclusively that highly refined components were not mixed to prepare
the coin alloy, and that the formula for that bronze was not strictly
adhered to by the various mints. Therefore some silver would remain
in the coins.
How is the law of 349 A.D., which specifically refers to silver in the
maiorina pecunia , to be understood in the light of this new view?
According to the Lex Julia , as commented upon by Ulpian, it was
19 Finlay, Greece Under the Romans (London, n. d.), p. 127, note 1.
20 Elmer, "Die Kupfergeldform unter Julianus Philosophus," Numismatische
Zeitschrift y neue Folge XXX (1937), p. 31. He also maintained that the smaller
coins were of pure copper, and that only individual ones showed as much as
l/1000th part of silver. The examples of this coin which were silvery in ap-
pearance, he concluded, had been either silvered or zinced since antiquity.
120 A . N. S. MUSEUM NOTES
forbidden at an early date to insert or to mix any

of the public currency, and it was also forbidden
therefrom.21 This important law was still in force i
The text of the edict of 349 A.D. reinforces this pro
to a specific set of circumstances. The exact in
becomes evident from a careful review of the wor
Imp. Constantius A. Limenio P(raefecto) P(raetori)

nullos f laturarios maiorinam pecuniam non minus c
separato argento ab aere purgare. Si quis igitur pos
machinatione deprehensus, capitaliter se fecisse cog
qui domum agrumque praebuerint, relatis in largitio
plectendos: nostra scilicet super eorum nominibus
P(ro)p(osita) prid. id. Feb. Limenio et Catullino con
This is a constitution addressed to the Praetorian Prefect Limenius»

designed against the flaturarii who frequently cleanse [purgare) the
maior ina pecunia by separating the silver from the bronze. There is
no need at this point to determine what is meant by the maiorina
pecunia other than to indicate that it was obviously a form of bronze
currency. The text of Codex Theodosianus t IX, 23, 1, makes this
abundantly clear. The flaturarii are easily recognizable as some df the
mint workers. It was their function to cast and to prepare the coin
flan or blank discs of metal which were later struck by other workmen
at the mint.23 It must therefore be borne in mind that the fraudulent
practice which this constitution is directed against was definitely
perpetrated prior to the striking of the coin and the possible appli-
cation of any silver wash on the surface. It was a crime carried out
prior to or during the casting and preparation of the flan or blank
from which the coin itself was to be struck. What had happened to
cause the issuance of this new edict reinforcing the substance of the
21 Digest , XL VIII, 13, 1. This law refers to gold, silver and bronze. Basilika ,
LX, 45, 2, prohibits only the adulteration of gold and silver, but it does not
mention bronze.
22 Codex Theodosianus , IX, 21, 6 (Feb. 13, 349 A.D.).
23 F. Lenormant [E. Babelon] in Daremberg- Saglio, Dictionnaire des anti-
quités grecques et romaines , III, pt. II, p. 1984. For this meaning in words
related to flaturarius see Vitruvius, II, 7, 5, and Pliny, Naturalis Historiae,
VII, 06, 57, 197. Cf. Mommsen, Historie de la monnaie romaine , trans. Duc. de
Blacas, III, p. 15. It was Mommsen's view that the phrase confiare pecunias
meant to separate precious metal from the base metal coin.
Lex Julia ? Possibly it was reported to the Emperor Cons

that some of the flaturarii were further refining the metal sen
so as to remove the last vestiges of silver from the coppe
ores before making the blanks. Since there would be vir
change in the appearance of the coins they could do this succ
and secure a profit, if the silver content of the metallic
sufficiently high.
This edict therefore does not indicate that the bronze co
silver-washed, as has been supposed in the past, but rather
trary, that the coins were meant to look like bronzes. If
were meant to be silver-washed, the fraudulent practice of t
rarii would be immediately obvious to all. The newly iss
would not present a silvery appearance, and the piece that
tampered with would never have been received into circu
fear that the government would not honor it when it collect
Also the fact that this criminal act was apparently restric
mint officials indicates that the removal of a silver wash from coins
that had already been struck was not at issue. If it were a mere removal
of silver wash it cannot be doubted that others than mint workers
would be involved in the fraudulent practice. Such easy profits would
not be permitted to slip by. The metal workers of the Empire and
other members of the ordinary population would also have plied this
trade with vigor.
In summation it would appear on the basis of the chemical tests
and the actual text of the one pertinent law that the coin alloy of the
first half of the fourth century was relatively uncontrolled and that
the various ingredients were not highly refined. As the coinage of
silver coins fell off, however, and as the use of such silver coins came
to be more and more restricted to areas such as Britain, the imperial
government took sharper measures to recover all of the silver con-
tained in the ores used for the bronze coin alloy. After the mid-fourth
century it seems almost certain that no silver was permitted to remain
in the coin alloy.
The migration of the silver coinage to Britain, sections of Gaul, and
the lower Danube region is very noticeable during the fourth century.
The changes in the weights of the silver coins some time after
355 A.D. indicate a changed mint ratio. Without diverging too widely
from the subject of this article into the cont

intrinsic value and the variations in the supply
fourth century it can be said that the real rea
care in the recovery of silver in the latter half
lies in the changing value of that metal and its r
the borders of the Empire. A study dealing prim
coinage of that period should yield the final ans
Howard L. Adelson
»H<D
<D ^ «i
«iCU
CU <ntti
o <n S tfc
S ur*
al©
S rD ri^ ^^ oo ,£5 ri *C a n^ rû S 'C_£ d H ri ^ riî> ^_û cd 2 'ď 22í>2 .O ^ <5 2.Q'ècüjd 22 2 >ri ř ^ 2 N 2 ri t Sf2
^ ori rD ^ ri J2 ^ 0 ,£5 n J5 ¿,x3a o0_£ od53,x3 > J2 33^ >î>J2 _û 53 ^ í> 53t>JD .O rí=¡ Îïï .Q ^cüjd
1% <cd'"5 S ri ^'"5 ri *C rû "ri S 'C ^ 2 cd 'ď 22 'ri 2 <5 °cd 2 22 2 ri ř ^ "cd 2 ri 2 Sf2 £ .tí > 53
1% ^ m^pQcfi <cd'"5 S o rD ri »H <D ri ^ ^'"5 ^ o ,£5 ri ^ <D ri *C a J2 ¿ a CU «i ^ £ rû ^ 0 m "ri S n a 'C J5 <n o H d t i ,x3 ca> S ri o tfc _£ w t, ^ S ri o _) ^ > 53 pQ J2 2 cd 'ď _i 22 33^ î> PQ _û 'ri 2 _i ^ <5 53 t>JD PQ ^ °cd 2 .-i 'è 22 53 í> m .O rí=¡ 2 ri ^ ř ^ Îï ^ .Q m "cd 2 m N u £ al r*
£ £ £ OOOr-HOQOQCOQQOOCOOOìQ»00(N
© © © © I>OOOOOCOOÔOOÔOOCOOI>
pH
8888 Š8888888S888888888Š
í"H pH pH pH rH ^H rH pH pH rH pH r-H pH
SS07 ļ o So.
m%o' s
A9<f(foj I l>*
A rrt
I© ^ «4HÖ OIOOMO(NO g © g I> ©

I© ^ ö «4HÖ <5 ocd r0
^/wrllss
UOtJ II
II <N -g ,-h lOh^COHOO ÖH 3(M(N 'ñ
HH Il 10 O pH O o 00 IO O © CO I>» (N
MCLftS I 00 (N © r-H CO CO © <N (N
X II Ö pH ö r-i (M* © <N <N* CO ©
HH
Q
<N CO S 0000© S S®I>ÔÌOt1Ì(N S I> ^ © CO IO
I
£
fVd^J I-H O ä N W (N » w l> O CO TlJ W N g N H O M »O
II O I-H « IřJ H H ï « i*» 0 H o' ^ H l> ò H pH oó
% Il © 00 Oò 10 CO O
OUI 2 © <M 00 r-H CO <N o
Il © 00* <N* <N* © ©* <n
IO © CO IO ©©C0ÌO©©00©pHI>C0©<N S H O CO
UtX °. °0 © © © 00 CO © »-H CO © CO 00 IO % © 00 © co
CO fi <M* CO ©* <-i CO r-i |>* co' CO pH IO CO CO IO ~ CO <N* ©' pH IO*
(N CO ^ 00 ©âoOCOOHh'ÛD^Ì'^lOOìlOW©
Addio YY
YY J 1 00 10J 1 00*
pH © 00*
© ao
rH co# çooo©i>i
<N* <N* l>* IO T
os 00 © © ©oó©©©oooc©©©©©oo©oo©©©oo
!>■ io H o © »O io ©©>010©©©C01010 10 IO
luSt9
ti . *mti
AAAA
co^<n*
^ ^ co
Tť©»OI>iO ^ l>iOi
co ©' ©' 00" ^ tìì
-ļ-| PH I-H H
^H ^H pH ^H PH i-H I-H PH PH ^H I-H I-H I-H rH i-H i-H <-H i-H PH
I I 1 in
w
Q
1
S
'I Ii
cSo
9 Notes VI
ca co -i
rH CO tH ©I pG -i
VH rH Ļ) ^ j_| IH O
Ü d .2H 2 ¡2 S«Sö522S m «j Ö» <ës S
90ÁŤ10Q
90ÁŤ10Q <tJA,nv^
<tJA,nv^ a^SSbSBbsSSS^^^^^ba^SSbSBbsSSS^^^^^b
'GaJSjliti^'S'iH^'CJJ&cdctfaJcdcdrt S? b S S Ö bS?2S Ö
Ö SbÖ ^•?
JsS-S-SralßrSj-SBrSrSärSrSrS a^SSbSBbsSSS^^^^^b rS b S S rS b 'S 2 rS b ^ 5 5 ß
^8o885S8S8co8o8888 8 S 8 8 8 S 8
mz g g 8 8 8 § § 8 § 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 §
i-H i-H 1-H r-H pH Od i-H i-H f-H rH rH i-H p-H r-H rH i-H r-H
Tļl 0> <N

SSO^J <N I-H O
M440Q
O fi £* tí
WD J O S fi £* Si O tí
lO Ö
12VQIM O O 'ļj ^ M ^ (N Tļi |> <-h <N CC +
ê H -M
00 <N (/) Tť o 0
UOÀJ CO Gi IO (M O O I> C/)^^hO H « £
i^íc ^ io
^ *>
<Nh § sh
<H <H
o<©$ ¿ÔHOOO
¿ÔHOOOT*T*coiqco<1
<1 ^ rH
9 ^ o !Z!O0 co
S « <"H
o 23 o 22i-H
i-H ® ô
O Tļ
CO tJ< CO CO IO ©ļ »O TļihhHCOOO« H IO COO« ^
pV9^J o H* TlJ H io X co CO W CO O io H 00 N 00 00 CO CO O <D
I-H fH io* co CO I> CO o" <N* <N* H o h co Tļi (M* io* I> io co
O CO ^ O CO O rH CO CO O O
outy
outy •ZZ 00 ^ O
rH Ö coN ^Ht>
©i o o r-í
o O 00 rH
00 OCOlOOOitÔO^H^HQîOCOCO^ OOOìOOCOO g
Wfc
• ^ Ö CO^l¿T»OiOOOOO^ļhOlOHOOOCOCOCOiOH
l> IO O O © W H o co H I> CO <N O Tfî CO <D l> 00 T
C5hOC0(N000iI0QOOhl>^C00>Ô © h O O l> ÇO fe
» 7 oaoohOìoohioiowNOcoflìHîo co oo co *o <n o >
¿9Çq,0J <© oö CO* c<i 00 l> CÔ oí OÎ l> Ö Tiî <N io
0505000000000000000005050Ì0Ì0ÌO0500 Oi CO O* l> O 00 > -
(M (M 100*0 *0 OCO OO O C0*00

Cļ IO C0 H ^ o CO H I- I io (N C0I>05
i6 <tt* ^ CO l> 00 Tlí ^ <N* CÔ (N ^ t*Î id id d
msPM «
cé
o
- -
'OJV HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ^ H H ^ S
o tn ri 2P
t 2 Sä 1-1 >5
»
« aS a ! ¿I
1 2 ö Sä I g
s a 3 <5
U U ^ U4 ^
0 .ü.ßggrO.ß.Q.O.O.ß.O.ß.O.ß.n.ß.ß.ß.üggg'S'S'S
88£S8S88S§88oo8o8a¡888Mt588tt¡
m°x 88S888888888§888§88g§g88g
PH ř-H PH rH 1-1 PH I-H PH J"H PH PH (~H ^H rH f-H PH PH
(M <N
SSOJ <N o
Zp
#44op
WD
PH (M o H CO M « W (N|(N ^
IO o PH (M o O ¿0000000 ¡S o H CO 0 M W O O « M W H (N|(N osò 1020 000 O pH o ^ Tfļ d
II £: E: OCOOIMMWIOCOMNO I> O oo O I> O O ph
UOÁJ <MO TtiîOOîOHlOHHrtN (M W O IM O h (N l>
Il CO lO <N CO Oi-HQ a l> O OO ¡SÎOCÍN

¿daps cohwo 000 o o ao ^íh Õ^WNO
II O* fH CO 1- i ÒHH' ¿OO CO <N £ £< Ò O <M*
ai <n" i> Tf ph t> cô f-í o' ao co* 10 o co" <m' oó ò co* co* ph ci <n ph
OOrHIHQO^(MOOO(NOOlOlO(NiOÔOOOOÔOOiH(N
ai IHQO^(MOOO(NOOlOlO(NiOÔOOOOÔOOiH(N <n" H i> 00 N Tf h ph O t> cô O f-íH^ o'00l> aoNN Hhco*ON 10Oo îq co"l> ©N<m'HN ONoó iq00 ò ©i-H OiNco*OÎO00co* i-HOiphÎOt-H Oì
Oì ci OS
OS <n HH ph0000
05 CO 00 l> ^ COO NÍTHOOOOOÍOÍOH««
OUtV ^ ^ 0 O tf l> CO OiiíOOeOOilOOOíON w
.Z |>* <44 d (M* r-í pH pH pH tJÎ CO <N* pH pH O O* O O <M* »-Î
IC M l> CO O CO COhHfOQO(NOOOOCOH^ÔOO O ^
Ul
• ^ îiTHCO ^ (M
H N l© <^î
tí*i-H
00 <N
CO^ H
rHCO
I- t> 00
Î i-i O© ^ CO
<N* O C
<N c4 <
ÎOIOX(Noooohhioiûcoi><NÔ}U5HXCOIOX(MHOOTH©
Àdddo'ì
^ L^' ^CO05íOH00C0C0OOt-C00Ít-0005(MOOTÍíOC0Qt-O05C0
t>-' CO Tfi OÍ CO O (N H CO h-' H o h od ci IO Iii CO CO CO l> <N ^
OOOOtâoOOOOì6050iOÌ000505C10000QOOìOOOOOOOOOìOì
<N O OOOOOOMQOiOH T« O Q 00 O <M

luStí) AA 00 ^ iO^<NT|lhOOì(NOO TH tÔCO <N IO
*n . /H AA ^ _* _h* (M* (Jšļ rH* (M* cd CO <M* <N* ^ Tji ^ CO ^JÎ CO ^ ^
'OR HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Ö
<v
•-3
HH t- I Clj
^ HH ^ HH HH >
£ HH S ÍQ w tí rr-J
^ ë -S ~ -2 .2 .| rr-J g *
J -M
«ļ «ļ W
~CO
-M CO
I -M
W) 3 -M
-+->
C/) ^ Sr¡
-t-» -+->
r¡ „ ö SCO
r5 ö-t-»i iSCO
i CO g „
CO g CO 3 CO
Ö Ö
S
W
o i> co o o o £ ,í S S S ^ *3 r5 *A i
ö i> I W) ö ö C/) ö ^ ^
U COÜ co CJ CJ S O co co co í>
9*
ļ_, S ^ ^ Ç s
I^^-S^^sfiaggss^ss.asssss.as
soinos SdSSSSíTgjglBiSfifiegíSIsSSeefiSjS
g^^Ä^^^^^^^.ß.ü.o.O.O.ß.ß.ü.ß.ß.O.ß.ü
nSm<nnpQnSSSSnnnnn<nnnnnn(An
0«>000<MOQOOQCOOI0^HI>QI>0050COOO
H O O O ^ ® »q O O O O 00 00 ^ C» CO O « N «> co «5 O a
1
1 JVļO ^ T oìoocoioìoioòoooìoìoìoioiooócioìooìooì
^ ©000flìfl5©00000ì©©0ì0)00ì050ì00)00ì
i-H i-H rH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH
00
SS0J g
ppixo
M44QQ
wo
mm §
UOÄI g
ra S o co
AMļtS g ra « CO CO
o o o o
I-H*08I-HQ©<NOOI>I>CO O I> <N CO O S ^
r 1pt)3
r 7 1 ^ 2 9 9 O (N
OH «OhOHCOCONCO ci W
2 I-H OO°.«D^ O
«>. 2 ^
~ r-H
ço O I-H O O COOCOOWHOONOCOIOO
ÖUV7 ** CO CO ic 00 TîOOCOOCOI>I>OÍCOT^TťTÍ1
ÖUV7 • ¿ O <N* i-í O <N Ò O H H (N O O O f-í PH (M* Ö
O XIONMOOOOOHOHOOO © © fh TH © ©
UtT <N CO (N (N 0) O 00 O O H 00 O IO 00 rij <N lO <N 00 00 00
O CO fH H O H O O i"H •""* i~H rH i-H O O ^ H O O O O ^
COONÎ>OÍOOOOOOO)OH»^H^HÍO®?OÍO®
Jâddo^ H co O Oí (N ^ l> ií5 <N <N »O Tļļ O ^ 00 Oí <N 1> <N I> O
Adyyvj OíOSOdOdOdOíOíCOCOCOCOOíOíOíOíOdOdOOOdOdOíOdOdO}
00 o¿ o O «O © ci ÎO 00* ^ ÎO ÎO l> l> l> IS íO oo' O* N ¿ co
I> io o O O CO O h h h O CO o o o o
/í-í/S-ío AA H h io CO l> HOCOÔ OS OÍ IO H H (N
ÌHò}àm AA ^ H CO ^ Tji iî CO ^ ^ ^ ^ (N « O »O © ^ H
pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH ^ pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH pH
¿-a
CO r£
O
VkVk •"*
in in Ph
-£ Ph TS tí
(/) tí£3
■3. Vk .S in « Ph 8 .§ (/) « tí c
§ g O .2 > S tí a -I
^ 5 o 'S ë o I -ji tí •.§ a -j!
3 <5 > g| <3 •- 3 £ •- 5 £
CO H <5 HH N <3 •- 5 •- 5 »- >
S
g g
§ % l l l l
°om°s ¿i i
80 O
O©t- © |>
^ Tť ^ co
10IO
«O Tť O |> iO co 10 IO
« 88 8 ĚĚÉÉĚ
1- t pH PH
ss°1 .3 ^
m%o 3 % ^ -Q
^44op f £ g
<V ť O
Vî°D S I 2
PH°}M ^ ^
£ -S 8
u°¿i Q o %
nd <d C
^ Ö «Î
•Th CD
<D . V) "u
/yļ/yļ/ļ r-r *0 L 2 0 -P <N O © 1>
/W7 /yļ/yļ/ļ r-r ® L S 2 g ^ 0 ,H -P h o »oco
oó o 0 H <£> i> oo
JÍ p <N © © © ©
ou%2 ' h oo o o o
lil T G* O © CO O CO 00
lil U}£ T 00 00 IO CO © © 00
co ö CO Iii H (N Ò
eoo IO ^ CO © CO ©
TT io© l> © co i> © co
¿gņņoj ^ © co © © co oc
00© © I> © © ©
SO © © CO © Pi
«*»¿1 3
* 0 r- I i-H i- I r- i i- I i- H r- 1 rH
Î B « „ .2
S .S +■>
+■> 3 ™-g 3 „ I 1 ™
p cť d)
s a
1 The number of analyses is very limited, and only a ve

are reported in conjunction with detailed information
or the mint attribution of the coins. It is, therefore,
containing such information should be done. The sour
dividual mints must have differed from province to
the impurities in the metals would have varied from m
the coins have merely been attributed to a ruler or a
the scheme of attribution used in the source. The totals have been calculated
in some cases by the original analysts, but in many others it was found nece
sary to supply them. Since these totals give us the amount of material lost
in the analysis, they can, in some measure, be used to judge the exactness o
the testing, and it may also be seen whether the result might have been
materially changed by a closer analysis. In cases where the losses were cal-
culated by the original analyst they have been included. The table itself is
self-explanatory. In the columns to the right of the coin weights are the
percentages of the various metals included in the alloy.
The principal source of the chemical analyses listed in the table is J. Ham-
mer, "Der Feingehalt der griechischen und römischen Münzen, "Zeitschrift
für Numismatiky neue Folge XXVI (1926), pp. 1-145, which is summarized in
a chart on pages 137-144 of that work insofar as it pertains to the period of the
Later Roman Empire. Hammer's study is largely dependent on an earlier
work by E. Bibra, Die Bronzen und Kupferlegierungen der alten und ältesten
Völker (Erlangen, 1869). In addition some of the analyses contained in this
Appendix were derived from F. A. Schaeffer, "Deux trésors de monnaies
romaines découvertes en Alsace," Bulletin de la Société pour la Conservation
des Monuments historiques d'Alsace , 1926, pp. 93-128; W. Brambach, "Cen-
tenionalis," Mitteilungen für Münzensammler , I (1924), p. 84; J. and L. Saba-
tier, Production de l'or et de l'argent et du cuivre chez les anciens et hôtels moné-
taires des empires romain et byzantin , pp. 80-2; Maurice, Numismatique con-
stantinienne , III, pp. xxxiv-xxxix; P. H. Webb, "The Pre-Reform Coinage
of Diocletian and his Colleagues," Numismatic Chronicle , Ser. 5, Vol. IX, (1929),
pp. 192-3; Mommsen, Histoire de la monnaie romaine , trans. Duc de Blacas,
III, pp. 102-3; and p. 103, notes 1 and 2; N. Lewis, "A Hoard of Folles from
Seltz (Alsace)/' Numismatic Notes and Monographs, LXXIX, pp. 76-81;
H. Mattingly, "The Bermondsey Hoard, Analysis," Numismatic Chronicle ,
Ser. 6, Vol. VII (1947), p. 91; W. F. Brazener, "Analysis," in R. Mond and
O. H. Myers, The Bucheum, I, pp. 119-120, and Babelon, Traité des monnaies
grecques et romaines , I, pt. I, col. 370.
It is worthy of note that the more recent analyses, in general, seem to show
less silver content than the earlier ones, but it would be improper to speculate
about the cause for this phenomenon. Only in the analyses given by Bibra and
Maurice are appreciable amounts of silver to be found.
2 Antimony 0.10% and sulphur 0.03%.
3 The analyst is given as Commaille.
4 Traces of cobalt.
6 The analyst is given as Mahler.
6 The coin is one of a group of eight with an average weight of 9.97 grams.
The analyst is given as Mahler.
7 Antimony 0.13%, cobalt 0.11% and sulphur 0.09%.
8 Traces of antimony.
9 Traces of antimony and sulphur.

10 Traces of antimony and arsenic.
11 The analyst is given as Commaille. Hammer mistakenly lists this as a com
of Maximianus.
12 The coin is one of a group of thirteen with an average weight of 7.68 grams.
The analyst is given as Mahler.
13 Cited by Mommsen-Blacas, Babelon and Hammer from Sabatier.
16 The analyst is given as Göbel. It is cited by Mommsen-Blacas from Göbel.
16 The coin is one of a group of thirty-nine with an average weight of 4.47
grams. The analyst is given as Mahler.
17 Traces of cobalt and sulphur.
18 Antimony 0.08%.
19 Antimony 0.97% and traces of cobalt.
20 Antimony 0.30% and traces of arsenic, cobalt and sulphur.
22 The analyst is given as Göbel. Cited by Mommsen-Blacas from Gobel.
23 Traces of sulphur.
24 The coin is one of a group of ninety-six with an average weight of 4.49
grams. The analyst is given as Mahler.
27 Traces of cobalt. The analyst is given as Commaille.
82 Antimony 0.20%, traces of arsenic and cobalt.
33 Antimony 0.12%, traces of arsenic and cobalt.
34 Traces of antimony and sulphur.
35 Traces of antimony and cobalt.
36 Listed as Constantinus, but with the dates 337-361 A. D., indicating that
it must be Constantius II. Hammer lists it correctly as Constantius II. Anti-
mony 0.02% and traces of arsenic and cobalt.
37 Cited by Mommsen-Blacas and Hammer from Sabatier.
41 Cited by Mommsen-Blacas and Hammer from Sabatier.
42 Traces of antimony. Listed by Hammer under Valentinian I alone.
46 Cited from Hammer's listing of the analyses given by Bibra.
48 Cited by Mommsen-Blacas and Hammer from Sabatier. Mommsen-Blacas
attributes it to Justinian I alone and does not mention the traces of lead.
60 Cited by Babelon from Mommsen-Blacas.

Adelson_The_Bronze_Alloys

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adelson_The_Bronze_Alloys

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE BRONZE ALLOYS OF THE COINAGE OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Author(s): Howard L. Adelson

A summary study of the secondary numismatic literature re

1 Mickwitz, "Geld und Wirtschaft im römischen Reich des IV Jahrhu

washed coin were to come into conditions of p

2 C. H. V. Sutherland, "A Roman Hoard from Lincolnshire," Numismatic

the silver which is normally present in those ores as an impurity. The

such analyses involving a total of 319 coins extending f

6 J. G. Milne, "Report on the Coins found at Antinoe in 1914," Numismatic

silver-washed or zinced by counterfeiters since antiquity or even

12 Hammer, "Der Feingehalt der griechischen und römischen Münzen," Zeit-

This wide variation in the silver content

change in the coinage with the issuance o

ñeque centenionales (small coins) vel maior i

forbidden at an early date to insert or to mix any

Imp. Constantius A. Limenio P(raefecto) P(raetori)

This is a constitution addressed to the Praetorian Prefect Limenius»

Lex Julia ? Possibly it was reported to the Emperor Cons

from the subject of this article into the cont

I© ^ «4HÖ OIOOMO(NO g © g I> ©

Tļl 0> <N

(M (M 100*0 *0 OCO OO O C0*00

Il CO lO <N CO Oi-HQ a l> O OO ¡S^IOCÍN

<N O OOOOOOMQOiOH T« O Q 00 O <M

1 The number of analyses is very limited, and only a ve

9 Traces of antimony and sulphur.

You might also like

(M (M 1000 0 OCO OO O C0*00